Leaderboard

It's pretty quick work.

This. What I'm seeing now is that the world (generally speaking) is shifting direction. In many places, it's the first time in over 100 years where the latest generation has it harder than previous generations with income and living expenses, and the next generation after will probably have it harder again due to incredible debt many nations are in. This doesn't just traverse to sales - this also traverses to enthusiasm. Less disposable income also normally equates to having to work harder, and having less disposable time. Where people in the past have had ample of both, 'putting up' with bugs, and extra time to work around them, I think that the walls are going to slowly, but surely close in on this. People are going to just want to sit down and relax with something that distracts them from their problems and hard times, to something that 'just works'. To escape from the grind, problems that life brings. As such, I suspect people will start avoiding more things that introduce new problems and hurdles to overcome. This won't be everyone, but I do believe there is going to be a trend in this direction. I know even in my own life, even though I'm fortunate enough to maintain a comfortable amount of disposable income at the moment compared to many around me - I'm working harder, are more tired than normal, and have less patience to put up with bugs. I'm seeing many friends drop off from DCS completely due to lack of enthusiasm (largely caused by bugs), plus dealing with many bugs myself - has found myself playing DCS maybe a quarter (if lucky) compared to what I used to. With stable release now gone (let's face it... what we have even though it was supposed to be the destruction of Open Beta leaving Stable behind), is really Open Beta, with Stable release gone - so gone with it seems any chance of having something more stable. But we also need to be realistic. Bugs will come. This needs to be accepted. However - I perceive ED's attitudes to the bugs it's introduce is going to get DCS into far more trouble than they expect. What we're seeing with video's and youtube comments at the moment is a significant warning. I'm already at a stage where I have no desire for ED's maps anymore - focusing only on 3rd party - because I feel as though if 3rd party introduce bugs, they will attend to it much faster than what ED does, and as much as I love DCS and want it to thrive, rumors that I dismissed earlier I'm beginning to question if there's substance. I've been told that with marriage, often the problem isn't when a couple fight - it's when they stop fighting. Councellors tell me that there's a good chance to save a marriage with fighting couples. But once couples get to a stage where they've stopped fighting and no longer have the effort/energy/care - it can be near impossible to save the marriage. If so, the good news (at present) - is it seems even though many people are very upset - they are still passionate - passionate enough about DCS to care enough to make video's, write blasting comments on trailer video's, or writing stuff here. However - I do fear that the next step (if unresolved) will be people not caring anymore... and that's when the comments, video's, etc will just stop. It's then that this issue will become irreversible, and I don't know how close that is, but feel it's close. So while bug free expectations isn't realistic, stamping on those bugs as soon as they've been made is critical. This whole waiting 2+ years for bugs to be fixed needs to stop. Failure to address this I think will have significant and irreversible effects on the long term success of DCS. It really feels like now is a pivotal 'making or breaking' of DCS's future. I'm hoping with all the enthusiasm I can muster that the last 2 major updates (that were filled with 'fixed' is a sign that ED is changing direction, and not just a momentary gesture to try and appease customers.

Status update I'm still working on the Russian asset pack update. But the latest DCS updates added some issues which I had to deal with. Here is a screenshot of the latest addition to the pack.

Hi We decided to separate the destruction topic into a separate thread. We plan to tell you a little more about the destruction and get your feedback. Here you will learn how the destruction models work, and will be able to suggest improvements on this topic. I will duplicate the list of original damage models from the review. Stay tune

If ED managed to keep the modules bug free it would be a huge win to them. To me they could take their time to release new features, but once released, keep them bug free. From this pov, i can't see why ED isn't developing more variants of the same aircraft. Like, why they didn't start with an earlier version of the F-16C and later offered a paid upgrade to the block 50 variant with all the cool features like DL, Sniper pod, HTS. An earlier version would be less complex to develop due to having less features.. then you could jutisfy selling a "naked" jet, and the paid upgrade to the more advanced variant could would serve as an incentive to keep working on the module, since they stated many times that they need a constant cashflow to develop something so complex. Sometimes it feels pointless to express what we feel here. This discussion exists for a very long time, "the players discontent with dcs". Feels pointless because either ED doesn't listen to the community or they simply can't do anything about it. "Because dcs is super complex" Sometimes i wish they would reduce the complexity. Like if the product is too complex that you can't deliver it without bugs, then reduce the complexity. But at the same time, you see third parties delivering maps like the Syria map, very complex and realistic radar simulations like the one in the F-15E Strike Eagle, Mirage 2000 -- both of those jets aren't being supported by the original developers right now and the radars are free of bugs --, study level simulation of FLIR and IR mechanics in other games of the genre... So the standard is there and it is impossible to not expect ED to meet them. Perhaps that is impossible to achieve? i hope not. But right now i would be less discontent if they just fixed what they currently have.

@currenthill Su-34 AI with updated weapons?

Maybe also some RF foot soldiers with basic ED animations and green masks? Armed with AK-12/15, RPG-7, PKP, SVDM, 9K333 Verba.

Check Six Simulations

2 proposals for the next release: 1) Hotkey for chaff/flares; 2) FAB-1500 UMPK.

Welcome to Vietnam War Vessels 0.7.0! In this update, we have introduced the O-1 Bird Dog (AI) light observation aircraft, along with two Indochine-style huts. The O-1 is a low-speed plane designed to support CAS missions; while jets handle the skies, the Bird Dog stays close to the ground, marking targets with its smoke rockets. It comes with four liveries: two Air Force, one Marine, and one Norwegian. We have also refined some existing assets. The A-1 Skyraider now features the unique "toilet bomb" loadout, and the CVA-31 Bon Homme Richard has received several visual improvements, including rearranged textures for the main mast, gangways, rescue boats, davits, and the LSO platform. Additionally, catapult operations on the Bon Homme Richard have been revamped, making it easier to connect with the catapults for takeoff. Our thanks go to Odyseus, Pirat3n, Hawkeye60, Citizen, James J. Jackson and mrflyboy - developers and testers of the mod. https://github.com/tspindler-cms/tetet-vwv/releases 2024-11-07 A-1 Skyraider - Fix toilet bomb pylon position - Reduce toilet bomb count to 1 from 50 MiG-17F "Fresco-C" - Fix distance lods CVA-31 Bon Homme Richard - Close bottom of LSO station DD-731 Maddox - Enable firing sounds for three main turrets 2024-11-05 buildings - Initial release of two Indochinese huts from Pirat3n A-1 Skyraider - Add infamous toilet bomb as loadout MiG-17F "Fresco-C" - Use correct distance lod edms O-1 Bird Dog - Initial release of this light observation aircraft CVA-31 Bon Homme Richard - Texture updates for island, LSO and rescue boat - Improved hook-up behaviour on both cats - Use a different wake class (Arleigh Burke) - Add CVS16 routes

I have passed your observations on to our QA team. thank you

I'm opening a beer now to celebrate: I finished the last of the kneeboard maps for my upcoming Red Flag 81-2 campaign. There are a total of 97 of these in the campaign. 97 times I had to draw the lines and measure the distance remaining as well as the minutes passed. These are modeled exactly after originals, and these will be your best friend as you navigate across the ridgelines to meet your time on target. One of the most satisfying things I've done in a flight sim, dropping my bombs within a few seconds of the briefed time.

Version 2.3.6 -- 20241107 -- Feature Update Recently, while assisting a fellow mission designer, I ran into a communications challenge: I tried to convey how modules talk to each other and realized just how inadequate all explanations that involve flags and methods and whatnot were. I needed a new, better approach that allows non-technical people to easier grasp how this works. As I so often do, I kicked the issue up to a bright friend of mine, who also happens to be an artist. It took us more than a bottle of wine, and some of her free-associative thinking, but we came up with what I now call the "Yeller Model". It's become part of the documentation, and I hope that it may help many aspiring mission designers to grasp more easily how modules interact, and it allows most of them to craft great missions without ever using the word flag. Please see the documentation. Other than that, this release also sees a major new feature for one of DML's prime modules: heloTroops. Based on a request I added 'dropZones' that can kick up heloTroops' functionality a notch, while (of course) staying completely backwards compatible. It comes with its own new demo 'Inferno at sea', which is basically an endless extraction mission for helicopters, put together in a few minutes. Also, The Debugger has received a feature update which will bring great relief to a tiny goup of mission designers who actually use it: it now sports a feature to identify misspelled flag names ("commands" in "yeller" parlance). If you build a mission and for reasons unknown two modules seem to have problems talking to each other, a misspelled input or output is often the root cause. The Debugger's new "-x !" command (appropriately cryptic, don't you think?) lists all outputs that do not connect with an input (and vice versa), making it very likely, that one of the names was misspelled. Oh, and finally - which has unfortunately been par for the course in the past few months - a new DCS update came with game-breaking changes: this time on the Syria map. For reasons unknown, that map breaks one of DCS's cardinal rule that no two objects may have the same name. In Syria, well over 100 airfields now have the same name "H", which can break any existing script that accesses airports by name. I hardened DML's modules, and I am sure that there will be lingering issues until the kind folk at ED/Ugra correct this breathtakingly obvious blunder. All Changes in Detail Documentation Main Yeller Model (new) HeloTroops Debugger cunconnected in-/output detection Yeller Model demo (new) Inferno at Sea demo (new) Quick Ref Yeller Model HeloTroops Demos Inferno at sea: dropZones (new) Yeller Model (new) heloCargo (update) Modules cargoReceiver 2.1.0 new noBounce Attribute cfxZones 4.4.3 additional hardening of property processing civAir 3.1.0 hardening for Syria's 100+ airfields known as "H" convoy 2.1.0 new convoyTriggerMethod heloTroops 4.0.0 new dropZone new enforceDropZones playerScore 4.0.0 improved event handling suppress landing event after player spawn theDebugger 3.1.0 new detect unconnected inputs/outputs tool Enjoy, -ch

The bug seems to be that if you have a weapon page up on one MFD, and the HAD up on another, your HAD won't hold lock. Pretty critical bug, as that is the preferred way to get quick detects (using both sensors simultaneously).

What I know is that the more code/modules are in a project, the more work it is to maintain everything. And it's worse when the platform is getting changed, since that tends to require fixes in other code/modules. And the state of the art moves on too, so older modules either fall out of favor or need to be brought up to modern standards. But if modules will not generate enough sales if you bring them up to the state of the art, but you also can't abandon them, because the people who bought them expect to be able to keep using them, then the project will forever have modules that cost effort to maintain, but have low sales and reflect poorly on the product. So I have a hard time seeing it as a sustainable model to keep making modules, creating more and more work in maintenance and making it harder and harder to improve the game engine, without causing tons of rework in existing modules. Then the project is likely to run out of developers to maintain the standards they started with and certain features will never be implemented, because they require an excessive amount of (re)work. There is a reason why certain competitor products are releasing new game engines, either leaving old content behind on the old engine, or demoting old content to second tier status, and adding ways to get income from upgrading old modules. I personally think that a pivot will need to be made in the next few years, in a way that will anger many people, but that is needed for the long-term viability of DCS.

I have a temporary partial fix for this problem. It's far from perfect and it has drawbacks, but it may be enough to hold people over until ED fix the root cause. I noticed beyond 80km ground units stopped deleting dots, and there was an old trick I used back in the ST days to gain back some extra performance by reducing the draw distance for ground/air units from 80km to something more reasonable. The same tweak works here. Look at your current view distance setting in-game. Medium/high/low etc. Goto: DCS install > Config > Graphics.lua Scroll down to or find the camera = section of the settings, and find your current view distance (low, medium, high, ultra). Underneath that, change the 2nd value in the line: objects = {3000, 80000}; Take it down from 80000 to say 40000 or 60000. Maybe even 20000 or 30000 for a very busy mission like ECW if really necessary. This is in meters, so the draw distance for all jets and ground units will be reduced from 80km to 40km/60km. Beyond that they will be invisible, so keep that in mind re: Tpods. Save and you should be good. Obviously once you start going over the 100-200 (think it starts at 101) ground units within that new view distance dots will still start to disappear, but it's a significant enough reduction that it should buy you a good bit of wiggle room depending on the mission.

Another video on the subject.

Generally i like DCS. Bought it not as much for the current jets, but for WW2 and helicopters. So far IMO WW2 seems quite unfinished, that's for planes and vehicles. Helicopters like the Huey is for me still a battle to get the controllers working under my control. Every time i start DCS i end it far too soon being frustrated about something. I usually then start IL2 Great Battles (expensive too) or Rise of Flight, and get more fun out of it, either with skinning, mission editor or game play. I can understand why it's tough to get this seemingly quite complicated game 'right'. But for now i feel that in regards of rewarding play time i did not get that much pleasure out of it money wise. Especially when you buy an expensive module that seemingly never gets finished for renown bugs. ------------------------------------------- Last summer i tried the last 2 tombraider games, and got far more gaming time pleasure out in regards of spent money .... each cost about 15 bucks on Steam, and you will need a general game controller.

We still cannot do something as basic as Sporn a Static object !

This is pretty clear that is something wrong on HW level. Is just a coincidence that started happening after an DCS update. There is absolute no other reason a computer might crash during some files checks.

Your way of thinking is not wrong at all but you need to realize it's not the campaign that broke, but Ugra, the map developer implemented some unannounced and drastic changes to their maps, and THAT in turn broke every campaign that uses their map. We, as campaign makers can only do one thing: try and find workarounds, change the missions hoping to find a way to make them work. This takes time and sometimes it's not even possible and we require the map developer to fix their bugs. What would help a lot is if Ugra had warned us about these changes before the public release, so we could have updated our missions by the time it was released. I know Baltic and I'm sure it won't take 'months'. All the campaign makers prioritize fixing their campaigns and make them bug free, but often we cannot do this in 1-2 days after such a curveball. But again, I agree, such bugs shouldn't be left in game for a month but I'm also pretty sure they won't be. After all, for you as a customer it doesn't really matter WHY the product is broken, only that is IS, and believe me it's bothering us just as much as it bothers you.

https://flyandwire.com/2024/09/21/jf-17-full-manual-machine-translation/

**SU-57** StandAlone Build 4.3 Released on 11/05/24 , this adds Oxygen system and the ability to bind radar lock to your hotas, stick, throttle.** Download. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yQoFka9lg6Gy9p2carMeOVmbOI3vPEcE/view?usp=sharing

Hello Folks, there we go to the beloved Su-35S Flanker-E/M. Still WIP for current time, no release date planned yet, we keep working and upgrading models, External and Internal 3D, EFM and ASM. Internal with full clickable cockpit. keep tuned ...

an interesting point of view

the modeling of these AI aircraft are low-quality, maybe it is time to considering some update. It doesn't have to be like F-16 or F-14, but should be somewhere near Su-34 or Su-24, it is 2024 after all, most of them are retired long time ago, even the early version of Su-30, so I assume there won't be a secrecy issue? Anyway it would be nice to have them update.

We fixed some Shrike tone/indication stuff for the next patch, cheers.

Thank you so much !!!!!

Yup, manual section DCS > Mission Editor: https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/dcs/mission_editor.html#flight-plan-preparation

You're 100% quality CH. Thank you.

Schreib doch lieber eine Antwort auf deinen existierenden Thread, anstatt einen zweiten Thread mit dem gleichen Titel zu eröffnen, bei dem zunächst niemand weiß, wovon du redest.

The insane part is they want to make them headset dependent but refuse to allow VR users to turn them OFF. I fundamentally do not understand why OFF is not an option!?!?

Ugra just keeps on bringing out the Matthew in me

Если не ошибаюсь, то вся лажа из-за парковки касалась только Интел и их процов с е-cores.

Yes and no! I really would like to see also the Hellcat which is the real Pacific ace maker!

Cores are not parked, that's good, but: dcs.20241106-173412.log APP (Main): Command line: "F:\DCS World\bin/DCS.exe" --restarted (restarted because of previous crash?) APP (Main): CPU cores: 16, threads: 24, System RAM: 32530 MB, Pagefile: 1293 MB ... DX11BACKEND (18280): failed to create structed buffer. Reason: E_OUTOFMEMORY dcs.20241106-173412.crash 0x000000000002535b (edCore): ed::fatal_out_of_memory + 0x3B The F-4 is resource heavy, increase pagefile to fixed 32GB or 64GB, in special options set "HB UI online access" to "offline", reduce/disable some eye-candy DCS settings, like chimneySmokeDensity motionBlur civTraffic. Also check this link: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/331896-crash-troubleshooting-guide/#comment-5272952 and be aware that latest NV drivers are causing multiple issues.

Может стоит заменить иноземные аббревиатуры на сокращения на родном, типа: 1. ПЛ( полет) 2. ЗВ (зависание) 3. ЗВП (зависание с перемещениями) 4. БМ (боевое маневрирование). Сейчас это выглядит, как что-то недоделанное, промежуточный вариант какой-то из смеси языков. Есть ещё пара мест с такими же симптомами.

Пишу не помню в какой раз... В строке статусбара очень не хватает параметра скорости в числах М для всех объектов. Значение шага винта для вертолетов. И значение высоты по радиовысотомеру.

Don't forget to check windows sound mixer after opening pimax and re-setting your pimax devices in there too.

1 hr for 50% fuel is usually best estimate, 1000-1100 L/hr IMO. You will get best results from knowing your best speeds for cruise (250-270 kmh), and loiter (130-150 kmh). 140 kmh is best climb speed and most efficient descent speed There is also the “rotor rpm adjust” switch, which if you lower all the way can also reduce fuel consumption 2-3%, and if you raise it will increase fuel consumption same amount, but also increase lift/control Weapons have a surprisingly small effect, about 2-3%. The IRL manuals say the difference is so small that the range charts assume you always have payload and there are no figures/charts for being clean, as 2-3% falls within an expected margin of error. Also. Because the wings produce 25% lift at cruise, and are behind the CG/rotor, and payload their moves center of gravity back, which increases the angle of attack of the wing, increasing wing lift (which is more efficient then rotor lift), and actually increases efficiency Gun ammo has opposite effect since the bullets are loaded in the nose. It’s not until about 300 kmh or above that the drag outweighs the benefit of moving the center of gravity back in terms of fuel efficiency and maneuverability

I use PD 1.0 in DCS with the PIMAX Crystal and its perfect for me. It is going to be very difficult to make everyone happy no matter what we do, there are way to many variables at play.

Hey folks! I recently noticed, that the fuel calculation, that is constantly running in the background when the CK37 is active, and which is indicated by the striped "tie" in the fuel indicator, is currently not considering L2 (if it was set). Tip from my side: If you want to have sufficiently enough fuel for your flight, set the fuel needed to fly from L1 to L2 as your general fuel reserve, or even better: add it to the default 10% that are already pre-programmed in the CK. How to obtain the required fuel from L1 to L2: You can determine the fuel required for this leg by entering references for L1 and L2 (e.g. REF LOLA > IN > 9013 for L1 and > 9901 for L2), and then performing the plausibility check. Make a manual visual fix on L1 and then press the LMAL button once to switch to L2. The amount of fuel required for that leg should be read from the striped "tie" and noted, and then added to the fuel reserve (TAKT IN 51xx, where XX is the percentage). This replaces the "default" fuel reserve that is automatically in the CK after power up. If you want to add it to the standard reserve, add 10% to the determined value). That procedure is especially interesting for L2's that are at a large distance from L1 (more than 100km). If you didn't notice this bug since release, it was most probably "obscured" by the internal fuel reserve of 10% and a not-so-far distance between L1 and L2 Sources: SFI chapter "Bränsleberäkningar" and RC2.1 pages 172 & 173. Kind regards, TOViper

Hello, I found that this issue was not caused by a user mod after all, the root cause was that with age my throttle axis had reduced its range to the point were a zero throttle position would give an internal raw value higher than zero. Re-calibrating my Hotas with its calibration software fixed the issue, now the Z (throttle) axis does deliver a zero value when the throttle is all the way back: So, if in the future other user finds the same issue, check your throttle axis first, as the MiG-21 lock only works with throttle at zero.

Just a reminder This is NOT payware 2 of the best modders in the entire DCS community https://ko-fi.com/taesimulations Buy them a coffee to help continue their awesome work

Since you mention the price, Id like to remind you about two things: - You purchased an early access product. Experience can thus be rough for a minority of users. Id wish it wouldnt be like that, but thats how development goes. - We have a no-questions-asked refund policy. So if you cant get the issue resolved, you can just refund, get your money back and perhaps try again in a few years or once the product is out of EA Fingers crossed on getting these nasty issues resolved [emoji106]

Past three months were basically bug hunting, fixing my own screwups during the learning process, a lot of code purging, i had to rename all my textures to avoid conflict with existing ones, mount over 300 textures across all models, like custom weapons, main model and such. Also added a bunch of functionality to the cockpit, added new animations... also revision of over 18.000 lines of code, one by one... So yeah, i've been pretty busy, and nothing much exciting to show for now. People on the mod discord are more updated on the latest news. Here are a few Screenshots

You must admit some of the criticism have their own reason: now you have a lot of 3rd parties and a lot of new airplanes are made by them. Nevertheless your own modules list seems a bit too ambitious: a-10c, f/a-18, f-16, (very complex airframes); f-5, l-39, mig-15, f-86, (they all would need an overhaul); yak-52 (an easy prop plane almost abandoned for years); and now the mig-29 (I'm really glad to see at last a 4th gen redfor, but it's yet another module!). Then the helicopters: ah-64 (very complex), ka-50 and mi-24 (quite complex too), uh-1 and mi-8 (they also need an overhaul), and now the ch-47 (interesting machine, but again another new one!). Then all the ww2 and all the maps (always new ones); plus all the work on the main game (as far as I know the hardest, most time consuming and in need of human resources of all your works). Doesn't that sound a bit too much? If we criticized Razbam's list because it seemed a bit too ambitious for them, what is this in comparison? It is almost natural to think that you could leave the new projects to third parties and focus for a while on finishing or updating the existing ones (even for a fee, as with the a-10c II), in order to bring them all to the same level, fix the many bugs, put a point and only then, if anything, start from there with new modules. It does not seem so absurd to me such a thought, because the impression is that you cannot keep up with it as it is now, despite all the undoubted, tireless, undeniable efforts.

The thing to realize as well is that hardware prices don’t really escalate. They continue to seek essentially the same price point as customers are only willing to pay so much for a game or console. Accounting for inflation the PC I owned 15 or 20 years ago is the same price as the one I have now except it had a 40GB hard drive and 512MB of RAM. A 1985 Nintendo NES was the equivalent of $510 in today’s money. The same price as an Xbox today. Gaming PCs are rather a luxury good and just aren’t as mass market price conscious as consoles. Like a Bentley is to a Honda. It’s always possible to spend excessive amounts of money on one irregardless of value. Certain components like graphics cards see this outlandish demand driven by crypto mining, not games. And yet the whole system mentioned above even considers a machine equipped with the most expensive graphics card today. So yeah there’s this far away state of equilibrium that’s conceivable as the cost to make games balances out with the fact that they start to be come indistinguishable from reality and further improvement isn’t possible or economical. But games and especially DCS are nowhere near that now.